list_issues

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the read-only nature. The description adds useful filter behavior (state values and comma-separated labels), but does not mention pagination, result ordering, or whether pull requests are included in the results.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the most important parameter constraints. Every word earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The output schema covers return shape and the annotation covers safety, so the remaining needs are usage guidance and pagination behavior. The description gives just enough to list issues with basic filters but lacks a fuller operational context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description partially compensates by explaining valid values for state and the format for labels. However, it does not describe page, limit, owner, or repo beyond their schema titles, leaving some semantics to inference.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a clear action and resource ('List issues') and is easily distinguished from siblings like get_issue, create_issue, and list_pull_requests. However, it does not explicitly state the repository scope or differentiate itself from closely related tools such as list_issue_comments, relying mostly on the name.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_issue, list_issue_comments, or list_pull_requests. The description provides filter hints but no context for selecting the tool or exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.